Sri K. Suri Krishna

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :: ZAHEERABAD

PRESENT: K.SURI KRISHNA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD

SATURDAY THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

A.S.No.0 2 of 2016

Between:

1. Sri.Madhusudhan Rao Pampalkar Died (per L.R’s)

2.Smt.P.Jyothi, W/o.Late.P.Madhusudhan Rao, aged about 66 years, Occ:Retd. R/o. Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

3.Ms.Shilpa Ravi, W/o.Gautam Ravi, D/o. Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 44 years, H.No.1-2-593/28, Gagan Mahal Colony, Near AV College, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

4.Ms. Pampalkar Swathi, D/o.Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 41 years, Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

5.Ms. Pampalkar Pooja, D/o.Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 30years, Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

(Appellants No.2 to 5 by brought on record as per orders

dated:29-02-2024 in I.A.No.505 of 2022)

...Appellants/Plaintiff

AND

1.P. Narsimha Rao, S/o.Late.Venkateshwara Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-5-138, Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

Page 1 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

2.Smt. Kannez Fathima, W/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.1-5-3, Narayankhed village and Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents/Defendants

The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No.35 of 2007, Dt:07-12-2015, by the learned Junior

Civil Judge, Narayankhed, preferred appeal suit in

O.S.No.35 OF 2007

Between:

P. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Late. Venkateshwar Rao, aged about 60years, Occ: Agriculture and Business. R/o. Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.P. Narsimha Rao, S/o. Late.Venkateshwara Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-5-138, Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

2.Smt. Kannez Fathima, W/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.1-5-3, Narayankhed village and Mandal, Medak District.

....Defendants

This appeal suit is coming before me on 07-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Kumara Swamy and Sri. Santhosh SagarLearned counselsfor Appellant and Sri.P.S.Prakash Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri. M.A.Basith learned counsel for respondent No.2 and upon considering all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiff to set aside the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.35 of 2007, dated:07- 12-2015, passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

The GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

i).The Judgment and Decree under appeal is bad in law, contrary to the facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

ii).The trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record that was placed before the said Court and has come to an erroneous conclusion and dismissed the suit.

iii). The trial Court failed to appreciate that, the title of the appellant flows from the compromise recorded between the plaintiff and the first defendant in earlier proceedings in

O.S.No.42 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Narayankhed, Medak District and respondent No.1 in the present suit was illegally executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second respondent in respect of the part of the land which was the subject matter in O.S.No.42 of 2003 and thus the same is liable to be set aside.

Page 3 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

iv).The trial court has erroneously observed that, the appellant failed to show the total extent of land in Sy.No.23/1 and that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of the property covered by the proceedings in earlier suit in O.S.No.42 of 2003. When it is not the case of the respondents that apart from the property covered in O.S.No.42 of 2003 there is some other property and from the said property the present impugned sale deed came to be executed.

(v).The trial court ought to have appreciated that, the respondents remained ex-parte and they did not adduce any evidence before the court and as such there was no material to contradict the evidence produced by the appellant and on this ground alone the suit ought to have been decreed.

(vi).The trial court totally misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence on record and several findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to material available on record and based on extraneous considerations. By submitting the above, the appellants/plaintiff prayed the Court to set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayankhed.

Page 4 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

2.Now the following points that arise for consideration in the appeal suit are as follows:

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court suffers from irregularities and require any interference by this court?

2. To what relief?

POINT No.1:-Whether the impugned judgment and decree

of trial court suffers from irregularities and require any

interference by this court?

3. The plaintiff is an appellant, and the defendants are the respondents in O.S.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Narayankhed. The parties will be referred as

plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit in respect of 165 Sq.yards of land bearing plot No.134 and 134/1 in Sy.No.23/1 situated at

Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District seeking the relief of declaration of registered sale deed document

No.560/2007 dated:20-03-2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as illegal and void.

Page 5 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

5. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is an absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2 admeasuring

Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-25guntas respectively situated at

Narayankhed Village and Mandal and that he inherited the same from his ancestors. The plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are brothers and sons of one Late.Venkateshwara Rao. They got partitioned in the ancestral property orally, and the above said lands fell to the share of the plaintiff. While the defendant No.1 interfered in the possession of the plaintiff in the year 2003 the plaintiff filed

O.S.No.42/2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Narayankhed and the said suit was ended in compromise on 24- 01-2004. In the said compromise the defendant No.1 clearly and categorically admitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the above said land and he can deal with it as he likes and the defendant No.1 or his legal heirs shall not claim any right or interest over the said lands. The plaintiff further pleaded that, without any right or interest, the defendant No.1 with a dishonest intention fraudulently executed a registered sale deed document bearing No.560/2007 dated:20-03-2007 registered in the Sub-

Registrar Office, Narayankhed. This land purchased under the registered sale deed is the part and parcel of the above said agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2.

Page 6 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

6. The defendant No.1 filed written statement stating that, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the real brothers and sons of

Late. P.Venkateshwara Rao and that the said ancestral properties inherited from their ancestor and they have partitioned the land orally which are situated at Narayankhed. They are also having other properties in other places which are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the said properties are enjoying jointly as undivided Hindu joint family properties. The total extent of suit land bearing Sy.No.23/1 and 23/2 is admeasuring Ac.07-22guntas and Ac.05-13guntas respectively which were orally partitioned and as per the said partition the plaintiff got Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-25guntas. In the oral partition the defendant got remaining Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-26guntas and since then they are enjoying the same as owners and possessors as per their oral partition. The defendant No.1 denied any interference in the possession of the plaintiff in the year 2003. However, the plaintiff filed

O.S.No.42/2003 in respect of his share of land. After filing the

suit the plaintiff requested this defendant to accept the same and file compromise petition. Therefore, compromise petition was filed and the suit was decreed in terms of compromise on 24-01-2004 wherein it is clearly mentioned that they have

Page 7 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

compromised the matter in respect of said lands which were fallen to the share of plaintiff but not to pass the decree in respect of lands fallen to the share of defendant, as such the decree passed in O.S.No.42/2003 is not binding on the defendant

No.1 and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit in respect of lands fallen to the share of defendant No.1.

7.It is further pleaded that, the plot sold by him to the defendant No.2 is part and parcel of the land belonging to him.

The defendant No.2 after verification of all the records of ownership of defendant No.1 has purchased the same from this defendant and that the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. The defendant No.2 filed separate written statement stating that, she has purchased the plot admeasuring 165

Sq.yards from the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed document No.560/2007, dated:20-03-2007 after verification of all the records came to know that, the defendant No.1 is absolute owner of the plot and after satisfying the same she purchased the suit plot for valuable sale consideration and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She further pleaded

Page 8 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

that, after purchase of the plot she obtained GramPanchayath permission and constructed a house on the suit plot and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.The trial court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is illegal and void?

2. Whether the first defendant is entitled to share in the suit lands?

3. To what relief?

10. The plaintiff in support of the case, he himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.42/2003. On perusal of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 certified copy of compromise petition and decree in

O.S.No.42/2003. The husband of the defendant No.2 through GPA

of defendant No.2 has examined himself as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to

B15 are filed in support of the case of the defendant No.2. Ex.B1 to B9 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1975-76, 1985-86, 1989-90, 1995-96, 1999-2000, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, and 2006-2007. Ex.B10 is the certified copy Sale Deed

Page 9 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

No.287/2004 Dt.10-03-2004, Ex.B11 is the certified copy of Sale deed No.560/2007, Ex.B12 is the Certified copy of sale deed

No.561/2007 and Ex.B13 is the Original receipt of GP

Narayankhed for house building permission dated:25-09-2007,

Ex.B14 is the original GramaPanchayath permission letter

No.187/GP/2007 and Ex.B15 is the original plan.

11.It is revealed that, the defendant No.1 fairly admitted in the said compromise that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that he shall deal with his own property according to his wish and that the defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule land and he has no right or interest over the suit schedule property and he has no locus standi and sort of right to sell, execute any agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule land namely

Sy.No.23/1 and Sy.No.23/2 admeasuring Ac.03-31guntas and

Ac.02-26guntas respectively situated at Narayankhed.

12. On further perusal of the compromise between them and decree passed on the basis of compromise, it is clear that, the defendant No.1 has no land adjacent tothe suit schedule property i.e., subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003.

The boundaries of Sy.No.23/1 are as follows:-

Page 10 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

East: Land of MirJavad Ali

West: Govt.Panadi

North: R & B road from Narayankhed to Karsagutti

South: Lands of Akthar Patel and others.

The boundaries of Sy.No.23/2 are as follows:-

East: Land of Majeed Sab

West: Private Houses

North: Land of Ibrahim Patel

South: R&B road from Narayankhed to Karsagutti.

13. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, on perusal of the said boundaries it is crystal clear that, the defendant No.1 has no piece of land adjacent to the suit lands which is subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003, as such the question of defendant No.1 claiming that he is having half share in the said survey numbers does not arise.

14. The defendant No.1 did not enter into witness box and also did not choose to file any documents in support of their case to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The counsel for defendant

No.1 has cross-examined PW.1 at length but could not elicit anything importance to disbelieve the version of PW.1. The rights of the defendant No.2 who is the purchaser of the suit schedule

Page 11 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

property is dependent upon the claim of the defendant No.1. But the defendant No.1 did not choose to enter into witness box and also did not choose to file any documents in support of his case to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 though cross-examined PW.1 at length could not elicit any worthwhile material to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover the defendant No.1 fairly admitted in the said compromise petition under Ex.A4 in O.S.No.42/2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Narayankhed that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that he shall deal with his own property according to his wish and that the defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule land and he has no right or interest over the suit schedule property and he has no locus standi and sort of right to sell, execute any agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule land namely

Sy.No.23/1 and Sy.No.23/2 admeasuring Ac.03-31guntas and

Ac.02-26guntas respectively situated at Narayankhed. Apart from that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

Appellant that on perusal of the boundaries it is crystal clear that, the defendant No.1 has no piece of land adjacent to the suit lands which is subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003, as such the

Page 12 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

question of defendant No.1 claiming that he is having half share in the said survey numbers does not arise.

15. In this case the defendants No.1 neither entered into witness box to face cross-examination nor filed any documents in support of his claim, and it is fatal to the case of the defendants.

The following case law is squarely applicable to this case.

Equivalent citations:AIR 1999 SC 1441, 1999 (3) ALT 1

(SC), Vidhyadhar Vs. ManikRao and another.

What their Lordships observed that (Para No.16)

“Party who does not appear before the court to give

evidence in support of his case and to face cross-

examination an adverse inference is to be drawn against

such party”.

16. As stated supra, in this case the defendants No.1 who is claiming the ownership in respect of suit schedule property did not enter into witness box to face cross-examination as such by following the above case law of Hon’ble Apex Court an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. However, husband of defendant No.2 enter into witness box as GPA and he was cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff but no considerable evidence elicited which favors Defendant No.2.

Page 13 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

Therefore, this Court holds that the evidence of D2 and documents filed by her are not suffice to prove the case of either

D1 or D2. Under the above said circumstances, the defendants utterly failed to prove their case in any angle and the evidence adduced by D2and it is no way significance in just decision of the case. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 is discorded without any hesitation.

17. The trial court holding that, the plaintiff did not establish by way of documentary evidence showing that, the suit schedule property is part and parcel of property covered by

Exs.A2 to A4 and the said observation is not correct because the land covered under Exs.A2 to A4 are Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2 and that the defendant No.1 sold the plot to defendant No.2 in the land part and parcel of Sy.No.23/1. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of seeking declaration i.e., sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as illegal and void is against the facts and against the contents of documents Exs.A3 and Ex.A4 i.e., certified copies of decree and compromise petition respectively in O.S.No.42/2003. As such the finding of the trial court on Issue

No.1 is not well founded and suffers from irregularities and requires interference by this court. However the finding on Issue

Page 14 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

No.2 was answered against defendant No.1 as such the same is require no interference by this court. The point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

18. POINT No.2:- To what relief:-

In the result, the appeal suit be and is hereby allowed and consequently the judgment and decree dated:07-12- 2015 passed in O.S.No.35 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Narayankhed is set aside. Consequently the suit in

O.S.No.35 of 2007 be and is hereby decreed by declaring the sale

deed dated:20-03-2007 document bearing No.560 of 2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Narayankhed, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of April, 2025)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Appellants: For Respondents:

-NIL- -NIL-

Page 15 of 15

AS.No.0 2 of 2016

Exhibits marked on behalf of Appellants -

-NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondents :-

-NIL-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD.

Page 16 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :: ZAHEERABAD

PRESENT: K.SURI KRISHNA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD

SATURDAY THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

A.S.No.01 of 2016

Between:

1. Sri.Madhusudhan Rao Pampalkar Died (per L.R’s)

2.Smt.P.Jyothi, W/o.Late.P.Madhusudhan Rao, aged about 66 years, Occ:Retd. R/o. Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

3.Ms.Shilpa Ravi, W/o.Gautam Ravi, D/o. Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 44 years, H.No.1-2-593/28, Gagan Mahal Colony, Near AV College, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

4.Ms. Pampalkar Swathi, D/o.Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 41 years, Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

5.Ms. Pampalkar Pooja, D/o.Late.P.Madhusudhana Rao, aged about 30years, Flat No.181, Srila Heights, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

(Appellants No.2 to 5 by brought on record as per orders

dated:29-02-2024 in I.A.No.612 of 2022)

...Appellants/Plaintiff

AND

1.P. Narsimha Rao, S/o.Late.Venkateshwara Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-5-138, Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

Page 1 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

2.Smt. Kannez Fathima, W/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.1-5-3, Narayankhed village and Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents/Defendants

The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No.19 of 2007, Dt:07-12-2015, by the learned Junior

Civil Judge, Narayankhed, preferred appeal suit in

O.S.No.19 OF 2007

Between:

P. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Late. Venkateshwar Rao, aged about 60years, Occ: Agriculture and Business. R/o. Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.P. Narsimha Rao, S/o. Late.Venkateshwara Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-5-138, Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Medak District.

2.Smt. Kannez Fathima, W/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, aged about 26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.1-5-3, Narayankhed village and Mandal, Medak District.

....Defendants

This appeal suit is coming before me on 07-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Kumara Swamy and Sri. Santhosh SagarLearned counselsfor Appellant and Sri.P.S.Prakash Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri. M.A.Basith learned counsel for respondent No.2 and upon considering all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff to set aside the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.19 of 2007, dated:07- 12-2015, passed by the Learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

The GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

i).The Judgment and Decree under appeal is bad in law, contrary to the facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

ii).The trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record that was placed before the said Court and has come to an erroneous conclusion and dismissed the suit.

iii). The trial Court failed to appreciate that, the title of the appellant flows from the compromise recorded between the plaintiff and the first defendant in earlier proceedings in

O.S.No.42 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Narayankhed, Medak District and respondent No.1 in the present suit was illegally executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second respondent in respect of the part of the land which was the subject matter in O.S.No.42 of 2003 and thus the same is liable to be set aside.

Page 3 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

iv).The trial court has erroneously observed that, the appellant failed to show the total extent of land in Sy.No.23/1 and that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of the property covered by the proceedings in earlier suit in O.S.No.42 of 2003. When it is not the case of the respondents that apart from the property covered in O.S.No.42 of 2003 there is some other property and from the said property the present impugned sale deed came to be executed.

(v).The trial court ought to have appreciated that, the respondents remained ex-parte and they did not adduce any evidence before the court and as such there was no material to contradict the evidence produced by the appellant and on this ground alone the suit ought to have been decreed.

(vi).The trial court totally misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence on record and several findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to material available on record and based on extraneous considerations. By submitting the above, the appellants/plaintiff prayed the Court to set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayankhed.

Page 4 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

2.Now the following points that arise for consideration in the appeal suit are as follows:

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court suffers from irregularities and require any interference by this court?

2. To what relief.

POINT No.1:-Whether the impugned judgment and decree

of trial court suffers from irregularities and require any

interference by this court?

3. The plaintiff is an appellant, and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Narayankhed. The parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit in respect of 316.66 Sq.yards of land bearing plot No.134 and 134/1 in Sy.No.23/1 situated at

Narayankhed Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District seeking the relief of declaration of registered sale deed document

No.561/2007 dated:20-03-2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as illegal and void.

Page 5 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

5. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is an absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2 admeasuring

Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-25guntas respectively situated at

Narayankhed Village and Mandal and that he inherited the same from his ancestors. The plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are brothers and sons of one Late.Venkateshwara Rao. They got partitioned in the ancestral property orally, and the above said lands fell to the share of the plaintiff. While the defendant No.1 interfered in the possession of the plaintiff in the year 2003 the plaintiff filed

O.S.No.42/2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,

Narayankhed and the said suit was ended in compromise on 24- 01-2004. In the said compromise the defendant No.1 clearly and categorically admitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the above said land and he can deal with it as he likes and the defendant No.1 or his legal heirs shall not claim any right or interest over the said lands. The plaintiff further pleaded that, without any right or interest, the defendant No.1 with a dishonest intention fraudulently executed a registered sale deed document bearing No.561/2007 dated:20-03-2007 registered in the Sub-

Registrar Office, Narayankhed. This land purchased under the registered sale deed is the part and parcel of the above said agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2.

Page 6 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

6. The defendant No.1 filed written statement stating that, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the real brothers and sons of

Late. P.Venkateshwara Rao and that the said ancestral properties inherited from their ancestor and they have partitioned the land orally which are situated at Narayankhed. They are also having other properties in other places which are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the said properties are enjoying jointly as undivided Hindu joint family properties. The total extent of suit land bearing Sy.No.23/1 and 23/2 is admeasuring Ac.07-22guntas and Ac.05-13guntas respectively which were orally partitioned and as per the said partition the plaintiff got Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-25guntas. In the oral partition the defendant got remaining Ac.03-31guntas and Ac.02-26guntas and since then they are enjoying the same as owners and possessors as per their oral partition. The defendant No.1 denied any interference in the possession of the plaintiff in the year 2003. However, the plaintiff filed

O.S.No.42/2003 in respect of his share of land. After filing the

suit the plaintiff requested this defendant to accept the same and file compromise petition. Therefore, compromise petition was filed and the suit was decreed in terms of compromise on 24-01-2004 wherein it is clearly mentioned that they have

Page 7 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

compromised the matter in respect of said lands which were fallen to the share of plaintiff but not to pass the decree in respect of lands fallen to the share of defendant, as such the decree passed in O.S.No.42/2003 is not binding on the defendant

No.1 and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit in respect of lands fallen to the share of defendant No.1.

7.It is further pleaded that, the plot sold by him to the defendant No.2 is part and parcel of the land belonging to him.

The defendant No.2 after verification of all the records of ownership of defendant No.1 has purchased the same from this defendant and that the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. The defendant No.2 filed separate written statement stating that, she has purchased the plot admeasuring 316.66

Sq.yards from the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed document No.561/2007, dated:20-03-2007 after verification of all the records came to know that, the defendant No.1 is absolute owner of the plot and after satisfying the same she purchased the suit plot for valuable sale consideration and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. She further pleaded

Page 8 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

that, after purchase of the plot she obtained GramPanchayath permission and constructed a house on the suit plot and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.The trial court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is illegal and void?

2. Whether the first defendant is entitled to share in the suit lands?

3. To what relief?

10. The plaintiff in support of the case, he himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.42/2003. On perusal of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 certified copy of compromise petition and decree in

O.S.No.42/2003. The husband of the defendant No.2 through GPA

of defendant No.2 has examined himself as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to

B14 are filed in support of the case of the defendant No.2. Ex.B1 to B9 are the certified copies of pahanies for the years 1975-76, 1985-86, 1989-90, 1995-96, 1999-2000, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, and 2006-2007. Ex.B10 is the certified copy Sale Deed

Page 9 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

No.287/2004 Dt.10-03-2004, Ex.B11 is the certified copy of Sale deed No.560/2007, Ex.B12 is the Certified copy of sale deed

No.561/2007 and Ex.B13 is the original GramaPanchayath permission letter No.187/GP/2007 and Ex.B14 is the original plan.

11.It is revealed that, the defendant No.1 fairly admitted in the said compromise that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that he shall deal with his own property according to his wish and that the defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule land and he has no right or interest over the suit schedule property and he has no locus standi and sort of right to sell, execute any agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule land namely

Sy.No.23/1 and Sy.No.23/2 admeasuring Ac.03-31guntas and

Ac.02-26guntas respectively situated at Narayankhed.

12. On further perusal of the compromise between them and decree passed on the basis of compromise, it is clear that, the defendant No.1 has no land adjacent tothe suit schedule property i.e., subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003.

The boundaries of Sy.No.23/1 are as follows:-

East: Land of MirJavad Ali

West: Govt.Panadi

North: R & B road from Narayankhed to Karsagutti

Page 10 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

South: Lands of Akthar Patel and others.

The boundaries of Sy.No.23/2 are as follows:-

East: Land of Majeed Sab

West: Private Houses

North: Land of Ibrahim Patel

South: R&B road from Narayankhed to Karsagutti.

13. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, on perusal of the said boundaries it is crystal clear that, the defendant No.1 has no piece of land adjacent to the suit lands which is subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003, as such the question of defendant No.1 claiming that he is having half share in the said survey numbers does not arise.

14. The defendant No.1 did not enter into witness box and also did not choose to file any documents in support of their case to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The counsel for defendant

No.1 has cross-examined PW.1 at length but could not elicit anything importance to disbelieve the version of PW.1. The rights of the defendant No.2 who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property is dependent upon the claim of the defendant No.1. But the defendant No.1 did not choose to enter into witness box and also did not choose to file any documents in support of his case

Page 11 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 though cross-examined PW.1 at length could not elicit any worthwhile material to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover the defendant No.1 fairly admitted in the said compromise petition under Ex.A4 in O.S.No.42/2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Narayankhed that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that he shall deal with his own property according to his wish and that the defendant No.1 is no way concerned with the suit schedule land and he has no right or interest over the suit schedule property and he has no locus standi and sort of right to sell, execute any agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule land namely

Sy.No.23/1 and Sy.No.23/2 admeasuring Ac.03-31guntas and

Ac.02-26guntas respectively situated at Narayankhed. Apart from that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

Appellant that on perusal of the boundaries it is crystal clear that, the defendant No.1 has no piece of land adjacent to the suit lands which is subject matter in O.S.No.42/2003, as such the question of defendant No.1 claiming that he is having half share in the said survey numbers does not arise.

Page 12 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

15. In this case the defendants No.1 neither entered into witness box to face cross-examination nor filed any documents in support of his claim, and it is fatal to the case of the defendants.

The following case law is squarely applicable to this case.

Equivalent citations:AIR 1999 SC 1441, 1999 (3) ALT 1

(SC), Vidhyadhar Vs. ManikRao and another.

What their Lordships observed that (Para No.16)

“Party who does not appear before the court to give

evidence in support of his case and to face cross-

examination an adverse inference is to be drawn against

such party”.

16. As stated supra, in this case the defendants No.1 who is claiming the ownership in respect of suit schedule property did not enter into witness box to face cross-examination as such by following the above case law of Hon’ble Apex Court an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. However, husband of defendant No.2 enter into witness box as GPA and he was cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff but no considerable evidence elicited which favors Defendant No.2.

Therefore, this Court holds that the evidence of D2 and documents filed by her are not suffice to prove the case of either

D1 or D2. Under the above said circumstances, the defendant

Page 13 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

utterly failed to prove their case in any angel and the evidence adduced by D2 is no way significance for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 is discorded without any hesitation.

17. The trial court holding that, the plaintiff did not establish by way of documentary evidence showing that, the suit schedule property is part and parcel of property covered by

Exs.A2 to A4 and the said observation is not correct because the land covered under Exs.A2 to A4 are Sy.Nos.23/1 and 23/2 and that the defendant No.1 sold the plot to defendant No.2 in the land part and parcel of Sy.No.23/1. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of seeking declaration i.e., sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as illegal and void is against the facts and against the contents of documents Exs.A3 and Ex.A4 i.e., certified copies of decree and compromise petition respectively in O.S.No.42/2003. As such the finding of the trial court on Issue

No.1 is not well founded and suffers from irregularities and requires interference by this court. However the finding on Issue

No.2 was answered against defendant No.1 as such the same is require no interference by this court. The point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

Page 14 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

18. POINT No.2:- To what relief:-

In the result, the appeal suit be and is hereby allowed and consequently the judgment and decree dated:07-12- 2015 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Narayankhed is set aside. Consequently the suit in

O.S.No.19 of 2007 be and is hereby decreed by declaring the sale

deed dated:20-03-2007 document bearing No.561 of 2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Narayankhed, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of April, 2025)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Appellants: For Respondents:

-NIL- -NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Appellants -

-NIL-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondents :-

-NIL-

Page 15 of 15

AS.No.01 of 2016

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD.

Page 16 of 15

O.S.No.07/2025

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :: ZAHEERABAD,

PRESENT: K.SURI KRISHNA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD

SATURDAY, THE 19 th DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

OS.No.07 OF 2025

(Old O.S.No.173 of 2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Zaheerabad)

Between: Mohammed Ishaq Dangewale, S/o.Mohd.Kareem, aged about 42years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-2-74/1, Gadi Mohalla, Zaheerabad Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District. .…Plaintiff A N D

1. Syed Wajeed Haqqani, S/o.Syed Baqar Haqqani, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-5-55, Gadi Street, Zaheerabad Town, Sangareddy District.

2. Smt.Shabana Begum, W/o.Imran, aged about 30years, Occ:House wife, R/o.H.No.3-1-60, Tanu Shikarigalli pansel, Taleem Bidar Town, Karnataka State.

3. Khaja Shareef, aged about 35years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.48, Markunda Village, Taluq and District Bidar, Karnataka State.

4. Ismail Sab, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-4-9/5/A/1, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

5. Abdul Majeed, S/o.Mohammad Basith Sab, aged about 50years, Occ:Retd Army person, R/o.H.No.3-1-107, Gadi Mohala, Zaheerabad. …Defendants

Page 1 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

This suit is coming up before on 15-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Panduranga Reddy, Learned counsel for plaintiff and the Defendants No.1 to 5 are set ex-parte and upon hearing counsel for plaintiff, and upon considering all the material papers on record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, family members, men, agents, un-social elements, labourers and any other person or persons, claiming them or on their behalf from interfering and causing obstruction with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, in the interest of justice.

The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

2. Originally one Kareem Sab Dangewale was the owner, possessor and title holder of the agricultural land in Sy.No.332 admeasuring Ac.04-33guntas and the land in Sy.No.333/E admeasuring Ac.02-06guntas, totally admeasuring Ac.06-39 guntas, situated at Zaheerabad Town and Mandal. The Land in

Sy.No.333/E is situated on the Northern side and the Land in Sy.

No.332 is situated on the southern side. After the death of

Kareem Sab the above said properties were mutated in the name of his wife Smt.Saleema Bee as she was elder of the Family.

During the life time of Smt.Saleema Bee, she sold out Ac.00-39 guntas of land in Sy.No.333/E to different persons including an

Page 2 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

area of 2475 Square Yards to Defendant No.1 through Agreement of sale cum GPA vide Document No.1792 of 2010 dated:19-03- 2010 by dividing the land into plots.

3. It is submitted that, the mother of the Plaintiff died in the year 2011. After the death of the mother of the Plaintiff, her three sons applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. The Tahsildar Zaheerabad, vide Proc.No.D/13338/2014- 09-11-2014 dated:22.11.2014 passed orders mutating the names of the Plaintiff and his Brothers, as if the property was partitioned between the brothers and shares were separated and mutated the names of the brothers in both the survey numbers to the extent of 1/3rd share each. But in fact all the three brothers were enjoying the property jointly. Thus the Plaintiff along with his brothers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands to the extent of Ac.06-00guntas, i.e., Ac.03-34guntas in Sy.No.

333/E and Ac.02-06guntas in Sy.No.332. Subsequently the

Plaintiff's brothers namely Mohd.Ayub and Mohd.Idrees sold out their share of land admeasuring Ac.03-34guntas in Sy.No.333/E and the land admeasuring Ac.00-06gts in Sy.No.332, to thirds parties with the consent of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff remained in possession of the land in Sy.No.332 at the extreme south end.

Thus the Mother of the Plaintiff sold the land admeasuring Ac.00-

Page 3 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

39gts in Sy.No.333/E and the Plaintiff's brothers sold Ac.04-00gts of land comprising Ac.03-34gts in Sy.No.333/E and Ac.00-06gts in

Sy.No.332. Only the Plaintiff's share of land in Sy.No.332 to the extent of Ac.01-24gts is remaining with the Plaintiff and there is no dispute in between the Plaintiff and his brothers. The plaintiff is taking steps to correct the revenue entries as per their oral family settlement The Plaintiff is filing herewith the following documents and marked as the documents No.1 to 6 of the Plaint.

1. C.C of R.OR., for the year 1979-1980, 2. CC, of pahani for the year 2011-2012, 3. Original Proc.No.D/13338/2014-09-11-2014

dated 22.11.2014, 4. CC of registered Agreement of sale/GPA with

possession vide document No.1792 of 2010 in favour of defendant No.1. 5. C.C of Registered Sale deed vide Document

No. 3164/2015. 6. Market Value certificate

4.The defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of

Sale/GPA from the Plaintiff's mother to purchase the land in Sy.

No.333/E and basing on the Agreement of Sale/GPA sold out the plotted area purchased by him in the land in Sy.No.333/E but strangely trying to occupy the land in Sy.No.332 which is in possession of the Plaintiff. The defendants are strangers and not having any kind of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of registered sale Deed vide document No.1792 of 2010 the defendants along with their

Page 4 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

henchmen came to the suit and on 10-09-2019 and tried to interfere in Sy.No.332 which is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff with the initiation of Village elders and neighbors the Plaintiff could resist the activities of the defendants and could retain his possession over the suit land. While leaving the suit land the defendants threatened the Plaintiff that they will come again and occupy the suit land. The Plaintiff apprehend dispossession and danger in the hands of defendants. Under the above said circumstances, the plaintiff filed the above said suit.

5. Publication filed in the Rahnuma-e-Deccan daily newspaper but on 22-04-2024 the defendants called absent and there was no representation. Hence, the defendants were set ex-parte.

6.Heard, learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

POINT 1 and 2:

8.In the ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff is examined as

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A10 are marked of which Ex.A1 is the CC of

ROR for the year 1979-80, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A3 is the original proceeding No.D/13338/2014-

Page 5 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

09.11.2014, Dt: 22-11-2014, Ex.A4 is the C.C. of registered agreement of sale/GPA with possession vide Doc.No.1792/2010 in favour of defendant No.1, Ex.A5 is the C.C. of registered sale deed vide document No.3164/2015, Ex.A6 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 2015-2016, Ex.A7 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 2017-2018, Ex.A8 is the Memo issued by Tahsildar, Zaheerabad for the year 2018-2019, Ex.A9 is the 1-B Namuna (ROR) issued by Mee-seva, Ex.A10 is the Dharani Pahani issued by Mee-seva.

9.The Plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint. After having considered the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and the documentary evidence placed on behalf of the plaintiff vide Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 it is clear that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and title holderof the suit schedule property having purchased the same from his vendor through registered sale deed and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment.

10.Now the plaintiff unchallenged evidence shows that the defendants are not having any manner of right, title or interest are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and tried to remove bund and also not allowed the plaintiff to enter into his

Page 6 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

land. But with the help of adjacent lands owners the plaintiff could resist the illegal acts of the respondents. It is therefore, the claim of plaintiff is proved. Under the above circumstances, the suit is liable to be decreed. Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

POINT NO:2

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting

Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, family members, men, agents, un-social elements, labourers and any other person or persons, claiming them or on their behalf from interfering and causing obstruction into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of April, 2025)

Senior Civil Judge

Zaheerabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:

PW1: Mohammed Ishaq Dangewale -Ex-Parte-

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff:-

1.Ex.A1 is the CC of ROR for the year 1979-80,

2.Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 2011-12,

Page 7 of 8

O.S.No.07/2025

3.Ex.A3 is the original proceeding No.D/13338/2014- 09.11.2014, Dt: 22-11-2014,

4.Ex.A4 is the C.C. of registered agreement of sale/GPA with possession vide Doc.No.1792/2010 in favour of defendant

No.1,

5.Ex.A5 is the C.C. of registered sale deed vide document

No.3164/2015,

6.Ex.A6 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 2015-2016,

7.Ex.A7 is the C.C. of pahani for the year 2017-2018,

8.Ex.A8 is the Memo issued by Tahsildar, Zaheerabad for the year 2018-2019,

9.Ex.A9 is the 1-B Namuna (ROR) issued by Mee-seva,

10.Ex.A10 is the Dharani Pahani issued by Mee-seva.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendants:-

-NIL-

Senior Civil Judge

Zaheerabad

Page 8 of 8

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, ZAHEERABAD

PRESENT: K.SURI KRISHNA

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ZAHEERABAD

Thursday, the 17 th day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

BETWEEN: Smt. Peddabavi Kalpana @ Mula Kalpana, W/o. Mula Veera Reddy, D/o. Vira Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.3-30, Lakdaram, Pashamailaram, Sangareddy District, Presently residing at parents house H.No.1-44, Khaleelpur Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District. …Petitioner A N D Mula Veera Reddy, S/o.Mula Narsimha Reddy, aged about 39 years, Occ:Photographer, R/o.H.No.6-52, Kavya Venture, Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. …Respondent

This case is coming up before me on 16-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.PanduRangaReddy, learned counsel

for petitioner and the respondent is set ex-parte and upon hearing

both sides, and upon considering all the material papers and documents on record, this court delivered the following.

ORDER

1.This is a petition filed by the Petitioner/Wife U/Sec.13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act-1955, seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage performed with respondent on 26-02-2012 on a ground of cruelty and desertion.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER IS AS FOLLOWS:-

2.The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 26-02-2012 at Siddivinayaka Temple, Rejinthal

Page 1 of 6

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage the petitioner and respondent lived happily for a period of two years.

Out of their wedlock there are no issues.

3.It is submitted that, at the time of marriage, as per the demand of respondent and his parents, the parents of the petitioner have given net cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 5 tulas of Gold and other household articles to the respondent.

4.It is further submitted that, after the marriage the petitioner joined the company of respondent and lived happily for a period of two years. Later, the respondent started harassing the petitioner for want of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of doing photographer business. The petitioner father given

Rs.1,50,000/- and got purchased a plot in the name of petitioner.

Subsequently, the respondent again started harassing the petitioner to bring additional dowry. It is further submitted that, the respondent regularly used to consume alcohol and after consuming alcohol he used to beat the petitioner, due to which she sustained injuries and the same was informed to the elders and well wishers and the elders also held a panchayath at Isnapur Village. The elders suggested the respondent to lead happy marital life with the

Page 2 of 6

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

petitioner, but the respondent never changed his attitude and he continued to harass the petitioner mentally and physically.

5.It is further submitted that, as per the demand of respondent and his family members, the father of petitioner purchased a plot at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy

District and constructed the house on the said plot for the welfare of the petitioner. Even though the respondent was not satisfied with the same, and continued to harass the petitioner.

6.It is further submitted that, in the month of October-2021 the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house in this regard a panchayath was conducted in the presence of elders and the elders advised the respondent not to harass the petitioner, but the respondent and his parents did not listen the words of the panchayath elders. It is submitted that, the petitioner having vexed up with the attitude of the respondent and his parents, on 18-08- 2022 the petitioner lodged a complaint in the Hadnoor Police

Station and the same was registered in Cr.No.117 of 2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act and the same is pending. The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit in

O.S.No.48 of 2023 against the respondent for Declaration of title

and recovery of possession in respect of house constructed in Plot

No.39/part admeasuring 100Sq.Yards, situated at Isnapur Village,

Page 3 of 6

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

Patancheru Mandal and the same is pending on the file of Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy. It is further submitted that, the

respondent filed a false case for restitution of conjugal rights in

HMOP.No.89 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Sangareddy and the same is discussed for non-prosecuting the case by petitioner on 04-03-2025.

7.It is further submitted that, the marriage between petitioner and respondent irretrievably broken and there is no chance of reunion, as petitioner is suffering both physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the respondent. Now the petitioner is totally vexed and there is no other alternative remedy, except to approach the court of law for divorce. Finally, the petitioner came to conclusion that, it is not safe to her life in continuing marital life with respondent. As such the petitioner is residing separately from the respondent since October 2021. Under the above said circumstances the petitioner prayed this court for dissolution of their Marriage, Dt:26-02-2012 by granting decree of divorce.

8. The respondent inspite of service of notice, failed to attend and contest the case, hence he was set ex-parte.

9. In the ex-parte evidence, the petitioner is examined as

PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked of which Ex.P1 is the Wedding

Card, Ex.P2 are the (2) joint photographs of petitioner and Page 4 of 6

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

respondent, Ex.P3 is the attested copy of charge sheet in

Cr.No.117/2022, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of complaint dated:18- 08-2022.

10. Heard, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

11. Now the point for consideration is :-

1. Whether the Petitioner/Wife is entitled for decree of divorce on a ground of cruelty and desertion?

2. To what relief?

POINT NO:1 :-

12. Plaintiff as PW1 filed her chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of petition. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage held on26-02-2012 between PW1 and respondent and even the petitioner filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 to establish the same.

The unrebutted version of the petitioner establishes her claim.

13. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the petitioner/PW1 is entitled for the relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO:2

14. In the result, the petition is allowed and decree of divorce is granted by dissolving the marriage dt:26-02-2012 of the

Page 5 of 6

H.M.O.P.NO.07 OF 2025

Petitioner/Wife with Respondent/Husband. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025)

Senior Civil Judge

Zaheerabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Petitioner For Respondent:

PW.1:- Smt.Peddabavi Kalpana @ Mula Kalpana Set Ex-parte.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: is the Wedding Card. Set Ex-parte.

Ex.P2 are the (2) joint photographs of petitioner and respondent, Ex.P3 is the attested copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.117/2022, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of complaint dated:18-08-2022.

Senior Civil Judge

Zaheerabad.

Page 6 of 6

TSSN050003392017

Presented on : 08-08-2017 Registered on : 09-08-2017 Decided on : 11-03-2019 Duration : 1 years, 7 months, 3 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by Sri Sridhar Mandhani)

MC/19/2017

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

KALAGONDA ANITHA

Through Police Station Officer , R/O STATION NAGULA PALLY VILLAGE, PATANCHERU MANDAL, NOW

AT NALLAMPALLY VILLAGE, RAIKODE MANDAL, SANGAREDDY DIST.

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

KALAGONDA ANITHA

VERSUS :

K. RAMESH

Age: 25 Occupation : R/O STATION NAGULAPALLY VILLAGE, PATANCHERU MANDAL,

SANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: S. CHANDRASEKHAR PATIL, Advocate for appearing for K. RAMESH Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

125OFCRPC of CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 11-03-2019)

ORDER

DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED

Date : 11-03-2019 (Sri Sridhar Mandhani)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS